The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On September 29, 2017, the Seoul Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government preliminary return of capital gains tax on September 29, 2017, with respect to the transaction for which KRW 640,000,000 was sold to C on June 30, 2017. However, the Plaintiff did not pay the preliminary return. As a result, the Plaintiff has a tax claim of KRW 88,070,50 against B.

On the other hand, the defendant, who is the husband of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, leased the above lease deposit amount of KRW 220,00,000 to G with the lease deposit amount of KRW 220,00.

On May 4, 2018, B donated KRW 70,000 to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant gift contract”) by means of reimbursing KRW 70,000,000, out of the Defendant’s obligation to return the lease deposit against the Defendant’s G with insolvent, as indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant gift contract”).

Therefore, the gift contract of this case should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 70 million won and delay damages for the restoration to its original state.

B. The Defendant, while entrusting the return of the lease deposit to B, only the money transaction was erroneous and did not receive a donation of money from B.

2. We examine whether the act of the board B, on behalf of the defendant, returning the deposit for lease to the defendant G constitutes a gift.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence Nos. 7, 12, 1 through 3, and 4-1, 2, 5, and 6 of the evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, 5, and 6, the Defendant may recognize the fact that on December 7, 2016, the lease deposit was leased to G with respect to the 2nd floor of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government from January 20, 2017 to January 19, 2019. Since the above lease was terminated more than the contract maturity, the Defendant had to return the lease deposit to G in entirety, from February 26, 2018 to May 4, 2018, to May 4, 2018, the fact that the money transaction was made between the Defendant and the Defendant’s wife and the Defendant’s wife as follows:

(1) date;